Nope. It sounds more like nothing more than a veiled attack by you on those you disagree with or do not understand.
What is “Traditional Catholicism” (with a capital “T”) anyway? I definitely consider myself a traditionally-minded Catholic Christian but I in no way identify with the SSPX. Nor do I identify with what some like to call “Traditional Catholicism.”
The only fears I have with comments like your own is how they appear to others – particularly non-Catholics. The quality of your comments paint a fairly troubling picture of Catholicism.
Double nope. I am too young to have been through pre-Vatican 2 days myself, however those I know who have been through them seem not to have been in the slightest scarred by the experience.
For myself, it wouldn’t particularly bother me if Rome turned around and forbade women to be EMsHC, altar servers or readers, although I’ve been blessed to have served as a reader and EMHC in the past. Nor even if we were instructed to veil up again. Although I think such moves would be most unwise - if the problem with Vatican 2 was the suddenness and extent of the changes, it would be just as problematic to swing the pendulum back too far and too quickly the other way.
What does bother me about some traditionalists is a concern which funnily enough is the exact corollary of yours. If, as you surmise, some see pre-Vatican 2 times as some sort of dark, repressive ages, and for that reason are fearful of the TLM, in the same manner some traditionalists see Vatican 2 and what came afterwards as an era of chaos and hold the NO directly responsible for that.
In both cases I think the form of Mass (and the Council in the case of some traditionalists) is wrongly held to be the source of the problem. In the NO case, certainly the problems stemmed from the time period. Many institutions and most other mainstream Christian denominations went through their own problems in the 60s and following decades.
As for the SSPX, where do I start. I think it’s reasonable to be suspicious of any organisation that, while claiming loyalty to Rome and the Magisterium, levels the sort of unnecessary vitriol at it that Fellay and Williamson have in their recent statements. In this case it seems clear that Benedict has been working much harder and with much more success than could have been expected to address their concerns, and was holding out an olive branch with which he’s been beaten about the ears for his pains.